http://www.kpic.com/news/local/113612639.html

PORTLAND, Ore. - Two Oregon lawmakers have introduced legislation that will require people to submit to drug tests in order to receive state services.
MULTIMEDIA
WATCH THE VIDEO
State Sen. Bruce Starr, R-Hillsboro, is the chief sponsor of Senate Bill 538, which will require adults to undergo drug tests before they receive public assistance like welfare and food stamps. To continue receiving public assistance, they must take a drug test every six months. If they fail a test, their benefits will be revoked.
State Rep. Dennis Richardson, R-Central Point, is sponsoring House Bill 2995. If passed into law, those who want unemployment insurance will also need to pass a drug test. Those who fail will be denied the insurance unless they take part in a drug-treatment program.
Starr said the idea for his bill came from his constituents, and he said the goal is to get people off drugs.
Recipients of public services would pay for the tests and Starr said it would not be unlike what people do when they get a job. The idea is to provide an incentive for people to kick drug habits, and Starr thinks if they really want and need state services they will do so.
“Ultimately, though, as Oregonians, we should really hope and desire these people to get off the drugs,” he said. “Because that’s not healthy for them; it’s not healthy for their families, (and) if they have children, it’s not healthy for their children.”
He said taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill to support someone’s drug habit.
“We’re in a tough economic environment. We’re trying to look for opportunities to save money in government, and I think this is a way to do that that benefits the taxpayers and the recipients of state services.”
If both bills become law they will take effect on July 1, 2012.
What you can buy with food stamps
Read Senate Bill 538
Read House Bill 2995

Well good for them! I just had a conversation with a local buisness owner that said he's tired of the employment office sending down 20 people that he was sure he wouldn't waste his time drug testing 18 of them. Flocking Slackers anyway.

Fucksake, while we're at it, let's install ignition interlocks on all your cars...just in case...driving's a privilege not a right, correct?

The public would save 1000% more money by denying similar benefits to anyone that voted to cut taxes.

Make them install trip meters in their cars that turn on automatically as soon as they enter a public roadway and ding up fees whenever they enter a public space such as a park schoolyard, post office, or local ballpark.

When they come whining for medicare or unemployment, say "tough schit, buddy, what ever happened to that 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' you used to repeat over and over like a mantra?"

It's easy to fvck someone when they're already on the ground.

Coming from a guy who can't hold a job for more than a year or two?

Welfare = YES It's an entitlement program that generally panders to lazy people.

Unemployment = NO It's an insurance program that the employee paid into.

If you can't stop using drugs long enough to pass a test every 6 months there might be a problem.

I think it's a fair requirement.

Oregon isn't the only state pondering chages to their welfare system.

Tough new changes coming to a state near you!

The employee pays NOTHING into unemployment insurance. It's paid by the employer.

This isn't just for the casual pot smoker, but for the meth head and crack whore too.

Well I don't like the state compelling people to give bodily fluids for a benefit they themselves paid into.

Besides, any drug that I would classify as harmful is undetectable after a few days.

BD----The employee pays it indirectly.

IOW.....I don't give a phvck who writes the check.

You don't care who writes the check as long as you get something you didn't pay into. Lemme guess, you're not employed?

Technically I suppose not...

Yep! Bait Dunker is just another neo-con/lib in sheeples clothing.

I can understand the reservation. You won't find me in line to readily submit any bodily fluids to any local gov't tax feeder.

On the other hand, those who support others that feed at the public trough have a resonable expectation to have the peace of mind knowing that money is going to someone who is a making an honest effort to better themselves.

As opposed to some meth head who's taking their cash and buying god knows what.

If you have your hand out,........ don't be suprised when those who are doing the giving require some assurance that their money is being spent wisely.

How many jobs can you get these days without a drug test? That was the beef the buisness owner I talked to said. These people aren't even looking for a job, they just wanted him to sign the little card saying they applied for a job to keep the checks coming.

Which Police depts, Sheriff depts, or even the State Patrol do random drug tests on their uniformed officers?...you know..the guys that carry guns and shoot citizens. I am not talking about "for cause" tests I'm talking random drug tests....like the kind they give the kid that bags my groceries at Safeway.

It's probably better for all of us and the goats if baitphvcker didn't live his dream.

I've slung my fair share of chit towards Abu but I certainly don't begrudge a fellow for living life and having fun.

I take a radical conservative position on this one. I don't care if welfare or unemployment compensation recipients use drugs. Not my business, and not for me to care about.

What I care about is that anyone receiving welfare be actively engaged in a program (vocational training, retraining, or some such) that will result in getting them off of welfare. For example, an unwed mother who didn't finish high school would be provided child care and educational opportunity and a small stipend. Should she be stupid enough to get knocked up a second time, her first child is taken away and put up for adoption, and she is kicked onto the street where bad decisions belong (sort of). It's an "actions have consequences" type of plan, but some people think I lack compassion.

In the second case, I don't care if someone who is unemployed entertains themselves with drug use. Similar thing though, need to be actively engaged in an effort to get off unemployment or get kicked to the street. The exception is the present economic recession where people able and willing to work simply cannot find it anywhere in the country. That's too deep a hole to expect individuals to dig themselves out of.

Sg

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/20...133f1f9f0b5970b


Drugs ain't the only problem with our Welfare System.